Jealous of that hair |
This refusal to rebaptize puts United Methodists in disagreement with several other Christian groups. The difference usually comes down to the practice of infant baptism. Some Christians think that baptizing babies is invalid and unbiblical, claiming that the baptized should be old enough to make a public declaration on their own. If this is a part of one's practice and doctrine, then of course an infant baptism doesn't "count." A pastor from one of these traditions would gladly rebaptize someone like Justin, who had been baptized as a baby.
This blog post is not going to resolve the ancient debate about the validity of infant baptism. (And I'll not even touch the issue of dunking versus sprinkling.) I will just say that the Methodist position teaches that baptism is a celebration of a covenant that God makes with humanity -- one that is all about God's work on our behalf. A rebaptism can communicate that a single person's decision to seek renewal or cleansing is more important than the work of God's grace. A life-changing moment of repentance in life is indeed something that we Methodists proclaim and encourage. Our own founder, John Wesley, experienced God in a new and life-changing way after he was already an ordained minister. But in that moment of renewal we celebrate that God had already been pursuing us from the beginning. That's what our baptisms are about. A reaffirmation of that covenant love is very appropriate, and it places the focus on God's love instead of on a human decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment